Conquer Club

The Detroit Red Wings take it up the ass. Homophobic or not?

GreecePwns wrote:The Detroit Red Wings take it up the ass. Homophobic or not?

Regardless, it's true.

inb4 Serbia

AAFitz wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I've never known it to mean forced anal sex. I always thought it just meant being on the receiving end of consensual anal sex. Hmmm.

In what region do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Perhaps it's a regional difference?

Its is commonly used to suggest one has been wronged as BBS said.

Most uses of the phrase are homophobic by nature, and in real usage, while its possible to construct a scenario where it is not, most uses would be homophobic by the phrases very nature.

When used perhaps to recount actual events, that would perhaps be the only time it wasn't specifically homophobic, but even then, could absolutely be used because of homophobic influences by the user.

One other exception, is when ex-cons use the phrase. Best not to infer anything about that usage, or ever bring it up again.

Well, yeah, I was aware of the phrase's meaning of "having something bad happen to you" or "having somebody wrong you" or similar variations. I guess my original answer was made with me taking the question way too literally.

Either way, I had just never heard it used to mean "non consensual sex in the asshole."

I have always thought it referred to getting a "boot" (kick) in the rear, aka army boots/sergeants. But hey, I also had no idea where the old "eeny Meeny Miny Moe" bit came from originally until basically college. (we just said "tiger" ... and left it at that).

GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?

Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd

I don't like the term "homophobic." I have issues with certain aspects of gay culture but that does not mean that I "fear" gays, rather that a natural extension of my moderate politics is to not completely buy into any single political group's agenda.

I do not consider it anti-gay to say that someone is "taking it up the ass" as anal sex is common in heterosexual couples and it is not being implied with that phrase that willful conduct in this act is unacceptable. I would say even those women and men who enjoy receiving anal sex would not want to experience it non-consensually, which is really the connotation of the phrase, that the lack of willingness is an aspect of the displeasure inherent when one "takes it up the ass."

rdsrds2120 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?

Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd

Look. This whole homophobic claim is a load of shit.

Here you are, projecting your interpretation of "taking it up the ass" onto all other individuals' interpretations. I've already addressed this weak claim earlier ITT.

The connotation is negative because the user of this phrase considers "taking it up the ass" to be undesirable. If anyone who finds anal sex into their person to be disagreeable, then they cannot justifiably be labeled as homophobic. All we can say is "they find that anal sex into their own persons is undesirable." It doesn't follow that their interpration means that intrusive anal sex, itself, is wrong. All that "getting fucked in the ass" means is "they got wronged."

period.

C'mon, rds. Put up your intellectual dukes, and we can homophobically settle this issue right here right now.

Woodruff wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."
If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?

In my view, this is not at all a homophobic insult. Presuming that the phrase is referring to something that is "very bad", it runs analogous the fact that something getting unceremoniously shoved up your ass is probably gonna hurt. Presumably, homosexuals...uh...have ceremony about it.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the terrible joke at the end.)

At any rate, if it is taken as homophobic, that presumes that anal sex doesn't happen in a heterosexual relationship? I'm not buying that.

I'm with Woody on this one.

MeDeFe, your strong support for Woody gives me a woody.

No.

.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?

Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd

Look. This whole homophobic claim is a load of shit.

Here you are, projecting your interpretation of "taking it up the ass" onto all other individuals' interpretations. I've already addressed this weak claim earlier ITT.

The connotation is negative because the user of this phrase considers "taking it up the ass" to be undesirable. If anyone who finds anal sex into their person to be disagreeable, then they cannot justifiably be labeled as homophobic. All we can say is "they find that anal sex into their own persons is undesirable." It doesn't follow that their interpration means that intrusive anal sex, itself, is wrong. All that "getting fucked in the ass" means is "they got wronged."

period.

C'mon, rds. Put up your intellectual dukes, and we can homophobically settle this issue right here right now.

Shoot, son. I was saying if that premise was assumed. You still got that sand in your eyes I don't think it's homophobic, and use the saying myself.

Dukes you say? Alright, but my David Bowie punch can send you flying in a hellstorm of glitter. Be prepared.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?

Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd

Look. This whole homophobic claim is a load of shit.

Here you are, projecting your interpretation of "taking it up the ass" onto all other individuals' interpretations. I've already addressed this weak claim earlier ITT.

The connotation is negative because the user of this phrase considers "taking it up the ass" to be undesirable. If anyone who finds anal sex into their person to be disagreeable, then they cannot justifiably be labeled as homophobic. All we can say is "they find that anal sex into their own persons is undesirable." It doesn't follow that their interpration means that intrusive anal sex, itself, is wrong. All that "getting fucked in the ass" means is "they got wronged."

period.

C'mon, rds. Put up your intellectual dukes, and we can homophobically settle this issue right here right now.

Shoot, son. I was saying if that premise was assumed. You still got that sand in your eyes I don't think it's homophobic, and use the saying myself.

Dukes you say? Alright, but my David Bowie punch can send you flying in a hellstorm of glitter. Be prepared.

-rd

Okay, glitter boy. It's on, and not in any homosexual way. I mean in a brotherly love kind of way, but not in any wincest way.

Let's say that your premise is true: For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

I'm still not convinced that your conclusion would follow: ("then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.").


My position is that the individual's estimate on the amount of men who are gay and have anal sex compared to "hetero-anal sexers" bears no relevance on your conclusion because the accuracy of that estimate doesn't matter. Instead, what matters is (a) the speaker's attitude toward taking it personally up the ass, and (b) his attitude on homosexuality.

For example,

[1] If the speaker (a) dislikes taking it up the ass, but (b) doesn't care what gay men do in dark alleys, then whenever he uses that phrase, he's not being homophobic.

[2] However, if the speaker (a) dislikes taking it up the ass, and (b) dislikes gays, then whenever he uses that phrase, I might concede that he's being homophobic.

[3] If the speaker (a) likes taking it up the ass, and (b) dislikes gays, then whenever he uses that phrase, he most likely is being homophobic.

[4] And of course, (a) likes, (b) likes, then most likely not being homophobic.


Note: Their estimate of the proportion of gay anal sexers to total anal sexers could be accurate or inaccurate, but that's not the main cause of why their use of that phrase is or is not homophobic.


To get to the bottom of this matter, the negative connotation toward gay men--with the use of that phrase--only originates from the speaker's attitude toward homosexuals and the listener's attitude toward the speaker (e.g. fitting words/meaning in someone's mouth where they don't belong). The phrase might be homophobic, but only in relation to the meaning of the phrase. The phrase itself is never homophobic because it depends on (X) the speaker's attitude, and (Y) the listener's attitude, which is an entirely different matter and is a source of confusion on matters of homophobic words. Their attitudes provide meaning to the words, and then these words can either be homophobic or not.

Words themselves aren't bad, homophobic, or hateful. It depends on the meaning of those words, and the meaning is shaped by the speaker and the listener. A homophobic speaker can render his words as homophobic, and a listener can correctly interpret those "words" as homophobic (ex: 3, and maybe 2). A listener can also incorrectly interpret another speaker's words as homophobic, assuming that the speaker is not actually homophobic (ex: 1 and 4).

It looks like things are really going this way too. As soon as they are done fundamentally transforming freedom of religion into freedom from religion, they are going to start fundamentally transforming freedom of speech into freedom from speech, and they will start referring to protection from being offended as the right to not be offended, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a bigot and denying people their rights.

Okay.

Phatscotty wrote:It looks like things are really going this way too. As soon as they are done fundamentally transforming freedom of religion into freedom from religion, they are going to start fundamentally transforming freedom of speech into freedom from speech, and they will start referring to protection from being offended as the right to not be offended, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a bigot and denying people their rights.

What about the actual bigots?

HAHA, I found this thread by searching "pegging" in the Conquer Club forum. Don't ask....let's just say I agree with the poster who said to be yourself.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

Therefore the original statement in question is homophobic, no matter the context. It implies there is something wrong with it, otherwise it wouldn't be an insult.

Phil1580 wrote:HAHA, I found this thread by searching "pegging" in the Conquer Club forum. Don't ask....let's just say I agree with the poster who said to be yourself.

Hahhaha, may your pursuit of "pegging" fare you well, Phil.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

"Take" is pretty open-ended to me. If it's too constricted for you, then don't complain to me. You apparent;y have some issues to smooth out.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

"Take" is pretty open-ended to me. If it's too constricted for you, then don't complain to me. You apparent;y have some issues to smooth out.

Just because you're cornered doesn't mean you have to lash out.
I could go on to explain that interacting with people in social situations tends to clarify issues such as this but I'm not nasty in that way as we well know.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

"Take" is pretty open-ended to me. If it's too constricted for you, then don't complain to me. You apparent;y have some issues to smooth out.

Just because you're cornered doesn't mean you have to lash out.
I could go on to explain that interacting with people in social situations tends to clarify issues such as this but I'm not nasty in that way as we well know.

Are you saying that 'when push comes to shove', all you can do is fart?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

"Take" is pretty open-ended to me. If it's too constricted for you, then don't complain to me. You apparent;y have some issues to smooth out.

Just because you're cornered doesn't mean you have to lash out.
I could go on to explain that interacting with people in social situations tends to clarify issues such as this but I'm not nasty in that way as we well know.

Are you saying that 'when push comes to shove', all you can do is fart?

That's the aggro way of looking at it I suppose but I was thinking more along the lines of 'pissing into the wind'.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

"Take" is pretty open-ended to me. If it's too constricted for you, then don't complain to me. You apparent;y have some issues to smooth out.

Just because you're cornered doesn't mean you have to lash out.
I could go on to explain that interacting with people in social situations tends to clarify issues such as this but I'm not nasty in that way as we well know.

Are you saying that 'when push comes to shove', all you can do is fart?

That's the aggro way of looking at it I suppose but I was thinking more along the lines of 'pissing into the wind'.

Oh, then you might want to change your pants, my good man.

I was actually trying to debate the not-to-be-missed delights of the original topic to stir things up, hoping I didn't revive a mixup instead.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.

I tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

Therefore the original statement in question is homophobic, no matter the context. It implies there is something wrong with it, otherwise it wouldn't be an insult.

You haven't got Clue #1 of what you're talking about. "Taking it up the ass" isn't, strictly speaking, an insult, although it can be used as one. It means, quite simply, that you are in a subservient position and are powerless to change that fact. Someone who is in a higher position than you might be insulting you by pointing out your predicament, but someone who is on the same level as you might be sympathetically commiserating. For instance, if you work at a company that has just unilaterally cut everyone's pay by 15%, and you'd love to quit but you can't because it's the only job in town right now, you might turn to your friends at work and say, "looks like we're taking it up the ass yet again."

Although the expression invokes anal sex, it's not primarily sexual. It quite simply means being in a subordinate position, as the person on the receiving end of anal sex generally is, regardless of whether it's homo- or hetero- sex. In fact, even if it involves sex it's not necessarily motivated by sexual desire. When sodomy is used in hazing rituals in gangs and fraternities, it almost never involves actual desire by the sodomiser for the sodomisee, but is simply a method of making the pleb understand that he has no rights and is basically a slave until his probation is over. Again, a senior gang member who says to the pleb, "you're going to take it up the ass now" might be insulting him, but a fellow pleb might be saying it with genuine sympathy.